Bpm109 Tma01 Whwan001 Wanwaihong

Tutor-marked Assignment One (TMA01)
Wan Wai Hong
M2110844
School of Science and Technology, Singapore University of Social Science
BPM109: Contract Administration
Mr Goh Ngan Hong
12th April 2021
1|Page
BPM 109 – TMA 01 Assignment
Question The terms “offer” and “acceptance” forms a basic but necessary symbiotic
1a relationship to validate a contract. Thus, while a call for tender is generally
treated as an invitation for interested parties to bid, it is also necessary to
examine the tender documents issued to the tenders to ascertain whether
there is a binding agreement being formed.
In the local case, Lim Beng Cheng v Lim Ngee Sing [2016], the judge ruled
that the language of the document used such as “it is agreed” is crucial in
establishing a binding contract between both parties.
In TC’s case, unless the tender documents issued had specifically stated
that TC agreed to accept the lowest bidder in the tender to be the main
contractor or similar clauses, TC will not be liable to accept LC’s bid.
Question First, we need to understand the difference between liquidated damages

1b and unliquidated damages.
Liquidated damages is a clause or a provision provided in the contract that

stipulates a fixed sum that can be enforceable by the damaged party upon a
breach of contract. Unliquidated damages, on the other hand, are not pre-
estimated nor inserted into the contract prior.
Liquidated damages can be beneficial to the offending party as they are

clear on the fixed amount of damages required while unliquidated damages
on the other hand, is subjective and can run into higher or lower amount
than liquidated damaged.
However, in OC’s case, it might be more beneficial for them to pay

unliquidated damages. The liquidated damages offered under the contract is
$100 million dollars per day, should the delay be more than 7 days, OC will
face total loss in the project itself. With unliquidated damages, OC may be
able to control his losses due to circumstances rather than a prohibitive
amount.
It is worth noting that Singapore had adopted a stance that liquidated

damages could be considered as a penalty if imposes secondary objectives.
In the case, Leiman v Noble Resources Ltd [2020], the judge ruled that any
liquidated damages in a contract must be of a legitimate commercial
interest, i.e. real losses due to the breach, and not as a means to punish the
defaulting party.
Question As long as the contractor is able to complete the project by the stipulated
2a contract time, there will no liquidated damages being imposed. Kindly
ensure that the site should be free and unobstructed on the date specified in
the new timeline. If any delay, kindly issue a EOT for the contractor. Once
the work has been completed, the contractor must notify you, vacate the site
and allow you to take possession.
Question
2b
2|Page
(i) Architect’s Instruction – the increase in thickness of the footpath will impact
the contract sum and is constituted as variation change in accordance with
SIA Building Contract clause 12(2) (Ong, K. Y., & Tan, J. C. P. 2021, p.
SU4-6).
(ii) Architect’s Direction – The plaster wall is a defective wall done by the
contractor. The architect could issue an Architect’s Instruction to make good
the defect. However, since you have ordered it to be taken down, it would be
an Architect’s Direction in accordance with 9th Edition of the Singapore
Institute of Architects Conditions of Building Contract (Fernandez, V. 2011,
p. 1).
(iii) Architect’s Direction – Not a variation as it is deemed necessary to provide a

safe environment to the excavated area, which is supported by the case,
William v Fitzmaurice (1858) 3H & N 844 (Ong, K. Y., & Tan, J. C. P. 2021,
p. SU4-7).
(iv) Architect’s Instruction – the change in the type of glass will impact the
contract sum and is constituted as a substitution and variation change in
accordance with SIA Building Contract clause 12(2) (Ong, K. Y., & Tan, J. C.
P. 2021, p. SU4-6).
Question Pursuant to clause 11(2) of the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions

2c of Building Contract, Architect shall issue an AI to review the defects and
thereafter do the following (Fernandez, V. 2011, p. 1):
- Pursuant to clause 11(3), issue AI to remove the defective work or

reduce the contract accordingly. (Fernandez, V. 2011, p. 1)
- Issue AD for a variation of the work due to the defect
Question 3 Item 1 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

Contract clause 23(1)(c), fire that is caused by factor not amounting to
contractor or sub-contractor’s negligence, default, omission or breach of
contract, will be eligible for extension of time by the contractor (Davis, N.
2020).
Item 2 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

Contract clause 23(1)(e), strikes or industrial actions by workers in
transportation of materials or goods that is caused by factor not amounting
to unreasonable acts or default of the contractors, will be eligible for
extension of time by the contractor (Davis, N. 2020).

Contract clause 23(1)(i), an EOT may only be granted should there be not
enough manpower arising from governmental actions, embargoes or
regulations which the contractor could not foreseeably anticipate (Davis, N.
2020). Even though the workers are injuried on site, it does not satisfy the
requirements meted out in clause 23(1)(i) and thus, no EOT will be given.

Contract clause 23(1)(i), an EOT will be granted should there be not enough
3|Page
manpower arising from governmental actions, embargoes or regulations

which the contractor could not foreseeably anticipate (Davis, N. 2020). The
quarantine order was issued by the Singapore government which satisfies
the requirement meted out in the clause 23(1)(i) and thus, the contractor is
eligible for EOT.
4|Page
Reference List
Lim Beng Cheng v Lim Ngee Sing [2016] 1 SLR 524
Leiman v Noble Resources Ltd [2020] SGCA 52
Ong, K. Y., & Tan, J. C. P. (2021). BPM109 Contract administration (Study Guide).
Singapore: Singapore University of Social Sciences.
Fernandez, V. The 9th Edition of the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building
Contract – The Recent Amendments. CNP Updates.
https://cnplaw.com/cnpupdate/Media/Content/Articles/2011/02/Article-9th.pdf
Davis, N. (2020, May). Singapore: Construction force majeure and alternative relief. Norton
Rose Fulbright. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-
sg/knowledge/publications/bfe53cf3/singapore-relief-provisions-in-construction-contract-
suites
5|Page

Bpm109 Tma01 Whwan001 Wanwaihong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bpm109 Tma01 Whwan001 Wanwaihong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bpm109 Tma01 Whwan001 Wanwaihong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tutor-marked Assignment One (TMA01)

Wan Wai Hong

School of Science and Technology, Singapore University of Social Science

BPM109: Contract Administration

Mr Goh Ngan Hong

12th April 2021

Question First, we need to understand the difference between liquidated damages

Liquidated damages is a clause or a provision provided in the contract that

Liquidated damages can be beneficial to the offending party as they are

However, in OC’s case, it might be more beneficial for them to pay

It is worth noting that Singapore had adopted a stance that liquidated

(iii) Architect’s Direction – Not a variation as it is deemed necessary to provide a

Question Pursuant to clause 11(2) of the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions

- Pursuant to clause 11(3), issue AI to remove the defective work or

Question 3 Item 1 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

Item 2 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

Item 3 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

Item 4 – Pursuant to Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building

manpower arising from governmental actions, embargoes or regulations

Leiman v Noble Resources Ltd [2020] SGCA 52

You might also like